Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 19, 2014 10:00pm-10:31pm PDT

10:00 pm
marsha walked you through design. embarcadero is a unique design and there is no clear record that embarcadero side has the relationship with the events that occurred during the 1934 strikes as stuart street did. in fact in the historic resource evaluation there were facts that page highlights and adopted that really make this a distinction unusual kind of building where only one building is a historic resource. the first is the building is a lot and there was a divider lot between the building and that is based on evidence from history of the family ownership at the time. there is clear evidence that he submitted along with his appeal that the long-term association was located on stuart street and accessible only from stuart
10:01 pm
street. again the hre which documents in greater detail adopted by the arer, the bloody events that galvanized the labor strikes curedoccur on stuart street. that's exactly what criterion one based on association with events that are important to california history. clearly the stuart street facade reflects that and we ask that you uphold the pmd. thank you, we stand for any questions. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, now opening for public comment. >> members of the planning commission. my name is raf shoem an, 1981
10:02 pm
with the writers union. i have been one of the people involved with five 5 years and put in the actual situation and specific characteristics of 150 stuart street as the center of the 1934 general strike and the office of hairy bridges were located which was a war scene and which the members of the local 1389 were targeted and many of them killed on that very site. what is of concern now to the local 10 as it was to the international law shore workers union delegation and international conference in confederation in 2009 which adopted unanimously a declaration putting on record the actual facts concerning this building and objecting
10:03 pm
to its falsification and removal from history and from physical presence among us. i want to call to your attention that the dell gatt of local 10 to the san francisco labor center to marcus and members of the e board at local tenant prepared a letter to the planning commission that addresses this specific concern. i would like to also call to your attention that kevin foster who is the prominent member of the national reblg sister of history category places in washington d.c. has put a record in a three page letter put in a call for the national historic landmarking for the buildings in the area that pertain to the history of the water front and general strike and struggles in that location. the building is the work of an architect who was a distinguished architect in san francisco
10:04 pm
who in fact his buildings are on the historical landmark and significant architect of the area and stuart street in particular. in effort to deep 6 the actual history of the historical significance and above all the dramatic significance of the 1934 general strike that em hyphenated -- emanated from that location should not stand. the effort to make the same falsification and others who worked with them to point out the actual record embraced by the planning commission at that time. the substance of what the iowu is saying to you is the following: we are deeply concerned that an official body in the san francisco and county false fies the history of the union and suppresses the truth of
10:05 pm
113 stuart. i would ask for a brief stingy. extension. >> everyone is allowed 3 minutes. >> you can leave your written documents if you like. sir, jury -- your time is up. please step aside and less the next person speak. >vice-president cindy wu: next speaker, please?
10:06 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. first of all i would like to read a portion of the csfn resolution of embarcadero resolution "whereas 2009 board of supervisors found substantial evidence that the existing building at 110 embarcadero that fronts 113 stuart street is a historic resources and where as the board also that found the building associated with long-term local 78 during the 1934 strike retains at the integrity associated with the events where as the board also found the building remains in the location of historic of the building remains next door and five buildings
10:07 pm
on the vicinity visible from the 1934 photograph still stands resulting in a block face that retains integrity. " whereas no other buildings in the block in the vicinity have glass curtain walls where there are plans to remove for a significant fee trees or stuart street. proposition m cause for the neighborhood character priority. whereas prop m also for historic landmarks and buildings. believes that embarcadero facade should be preserved as much as possible. whereas believes trees should be protected as much as possible. therefore be it resolved the san francisco urge the common wealth club to honor san francisco vibrant labor and history to maintain a
10:08 pm
dignified facade at 110 embarcadero and the treat -- trees on stuart street "i'm surprised the planning department would recommend this. when i wanted to replace windows, i was almost taken off. the previous speaker was trying to read part of his resolution. i will try to read part of it. for the san francisco planning commission to sanction this falsification constitutes a negation of historic road of sacrifice of bridges and our union leadership and entails suppression of the fact leading to the union hall at 113 stuart street with blood and members
10:09 pm
of the supporters for an on going police attack. please reserve the facade. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. next speaker? >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is bradley need miles in san francisco. i want to put this up here. the 1934 july phone book. i have highlighted the strike committee telephone which hairy brooks was the terror of the strike committee. that phone is located at 113 stuart street. so, that criterion no. 2 on ceqa. that's in this p.m.d.
10:10 pm
you have to vote this down because you are stating against fact. also, inside the hrer of turn bowl and hrer of this claim is ridiculous and a lot of the oral history cited bridges there. when he was come back with mayor ross from this building, the hall was under siege and the door was blocked for protection because the police were shooting into building and they couldn't see through the glass because it was so discolored. they recognized it's the nose, the
10:11 pm
bridges. that's in oral history. there is no question you cannot separate the leader of this event from the building. it's embarrassing that it is even there. one of the things that the lead document that the board of supervisors five years ago rejected turn bowl previous incorrect analysis of integrity and cited with us. i'm so glad that turn ball now years later, this block is the last of 36 plus water front house that has water front worker housing and buildings that relate as a district as important as jackson square. that is not just for it's own sake, but also in 34 and i'm running out of time here.
10:12 pm
in 34, the bottom picture on my hand, that is standing outside of 110 embarcadero. conversations with joe, long time owner he said that projectiles were fired through their windows. >> how are you doing? i'm andre johnson. i was told to read a letter. i'm not going to read a letter. i'm not good add public speaking. i am a long shore man. i'm on the executive committee, on the drill team. embarcadero, these people,
10:13 pm
common wealth, we have a meeting with them tonight. they sent me here. there is many of you all from alaska, san diego to hawaii. i have 18,000 brothers and sisters. bloody thursday is big to us. 80 years ago, stuart, embarcadero, market, mission was bloody, bloody. when you find some antique to restore it in its proper way, you do it properly. you don't modernize it. this is not modern of the times. right now, as of july first we were without a contract. the longest in a while. we work for 82 shipping companies that control the world industry of trade. this landmark? leave it alone. please.
10:14 pm
washington d.c. is smithsonian institute have our legacy there. leave it alone. joe biden visit there. leave it alone. common wealth, you want to show your common wealth, honor harry bridges, honor the long shore men. restore it as it is. put the historic pieces back together and i will guarantee you we will honor it. san francisco has always been with long shore. the docks we gave to the industry. travel, you want to modernize it for more tourist to come.
10:15 pm
people can fit at 400 north point and we own the four corners. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you. is there additional public comment? >> commissioners, i'm ron miguel. you have a packet i consider this a very thorough environmental analysis. i have not only examined the project material in detail, i have visited this site inside and out and very familiar with the area. i urge you to uphold the p.m.d and move this project along. it's interesting to me that this institution the common wealth club chooses to locate in such an
10:16 pm
historic location. here we have a hundred-year-old public forum that brought the events to the present, whatever that present was during it's history to a location that embodies and reflects much of our history city of change. my earliest memory of my grandfather, my mother's father is having his baby sitting duties on a saturday morning in the late 1930s. me probably six or seven years old sitting next to him in the cab of an old truck when he moved both cargo from one pierre to other. that was my introduction to embarcadero. the old working embarcadero. when the ymca down the block was frequented by sailors. quite a difference today. i
10:17 pm
know harry bridges is not here to speak for himself, however the common wealth club as consulted with willie adams who is the current secretary treasure and he fully speaks and supports for this plan including the modern facade on the embarcadero. you have to understand this once divided building. no one is disputing the stuart street historicity. that you and il done it to bring it to the public and visitors of san francisco. it's the common wealth club, they have that history, they live through it. the speakers that have been there before in those years have that record.
10:18 pm
the presence of the common wealth club are the emblem particular of our change. the design and permanent display the common wealth will have there regarding our history. the embarcadero entrance presents the future. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, please no interruptions. city clerk: excuse me sir, there is no disruptions from the audience at this time. sir, if you want to continue to interrupt the proceedings, we'll have to have you removed from the chambers. i would rather not have you do that. >> hi, my name is jim more shall of the preservation committee. this is not a project we
10:19 pm
address but i'm speaking for myself and i'm sure it's consistent with the values. i share all the feelings about the integrity of the common wealth club and i welcome them expanding and staying in san francisco vbl -- having a visible location however the been building they propose is not consistent with the historic preservation or any guidelines of good context to the neighbors. what we have here on the embarcadero side is clearly a very old historic building, it fits well with it's very historic neighbor and there should be every attempt to have a good contextual preservation and of this aspect. all the discussion about the stuart street building speaks for itself.
10:20 pm
i urge you to reexamine the possibility of keeping the context of these valuable historic buildings to really preserve the water front as well as the stuart street side. there is no reason why this can't be worked out properly and still accommodate all the needs of the common wealth club. we look for our history to be preserved, not recommendations from planning to eradicate it. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: next speaker? >> good afternoon, my name is role and, i have attended common wealth events since 1989 and a
10:21 pm
member. the decision that you have before you is an opportunity to uphold your preservation credentials. you don't to have rubber stamp the recommendations. what i recommend you do is go back to the planning department and have them correct some of the inaccuracies they put in there. so, for example, the owners and occupants of 113 stuart street include a variety of commercial tennants serving the water front uses and none appear to local contribution of local or state history. the staff has done that. they have made a mistake. i would recommend you go back and take a second look at their recommendations. the other thing i noticed about the 20 pagesch recommendations they made was they countered every single argument. that is not true.
10:22 pm
look at your history. this is more of a temple than it is just a building. according to page and turn bowl, it wasn't just a facade on the stuart street side that needed to be protected. what they referred to in the historical analysis was the aspects of the contribution to a historical resources. so go back and read that, please. you don't need to rubber stamp this even though the conclusion was already written out for today's date. you don't need to accept that. second of all, like i said, this has touched a third rail with union. there is a lot of people who are very very concerned about this because as a historic building, there is a lot of symbolism soeshtsd -- associated with it. we all love the common wealth club, i'm a member of the common wealth club and have a lot of friends and colleagues, this is not about the
10:23 pm
common wealth club. you don't need to show support, there is 20,000 members, we are proud of the common wealth club. this is no not the forum to promote the common wealth club. this is an opportunity to do jury -- your job. if you send this back, they will get another shot at it. if you approve this now and don't allow the appeal this is going to end up before the board of supervisors who are going to want to stand at least 6-5 with their original determination on the building. it's going to waste a lot of time. please send this back. thank you. >vice-president cindy wu: thank you, next speaker. >> hello, i'm from the jewish council? san francisco.
10:24 pm
we have committed a letter supporting this project. we are next door neighbors to where the common wealth club would like to open their next facility. we urge you to support and immediately approve this project without further undue delay. we are on the third floor of the building right next to where there will be some new construction, but we view the benefits far out weigh the cost. as a public affairs organization representing over 60 organizations in the bay area jewish community, the jcrc wholeheartedly supports the common wealth club decision to support the location on embarcadero immediately. any opportunity that can enhance this space that has been abandoned for so long that also encourages any civic engagement strengthens the
10:25 pm
invitity e -- invitity of this city. this is additional confirmation that it has paid attention to the community. the design, transport -- transparent facade and invited the public at large and close from the major transportation and close to the needs of it's neighbors. as to the remove of the four distressed trees. the offices have a current view of the trees and would support to replace with healthier ones. we strongly urge the commission approve and move this project forward with undue delay. the common wealth club has been suffering immensely from having to go back and forth on this project and we want to see it move forward
10:26 pm
so our neighborhood can be improved as well. >vice-president cindy wu: is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner, richards? >> i have an error on point. when i read every page of this the other night i was more clear on this. we are here today to vote on whether or not the negative preliminary negative declaration adequately addresses the issues of the appellant, correct? >> it's whether to uphold the actual negative declaration. >> if we do that it would hold? >> yes. >> are there future entitlements? >> no. >> it's a yes or no. from what i heard this building was never landmarked. i thought it would be a landmark given what i
10:27 pm
read from the events that happened are incredible. the fourth one, i'm confused at some of the speakers with the claim that 110 embarcadero, that side of the building did it actually was it connected to the historic events of 1934 or not. i have heard conflicting testimony that there was a dividing wall, not a wall and one stairwell, how can you get to the second floor. i'm a little confused now ats an it's a little less clear now if staff can clear that up. there is no proof that 110 had any role in the events other than that people passed it and people were shot outside the stuart street? >> good afternoon, president wu,
10:28 pm
members of the commission, staff from the department. the department has and will continue to regard this as a historical resource. this is the facade of the department do acknowledge that and notice the faus on embarcadero and do contribute to the history. however, we believe it's the stuart street facade that is most closely associated with the historic events relate to why the building's significance in the first place. so there are changes to embarcadero facade that wouldn't be consistent with the interiors but as a whole we did not believe it would cause a significant impact to the resource. therefore an impact to the environment. >> if the common wealth wouldn't move it there, would it be in the
10:29 pm
article? >> it would still be considered' resource and if someone wanted to pursue landmark of the property, they can. >> my question to the project sponsor, thank you. common wealth club. project sponsor team? and the fact taht is that you landmark that part of the billion are -- building, are you going to landmark it? >> hi, ceo of the club, daughter of the docks in san francisco in the 1930s. so we have not thought of landmarking it. we can certainly look into it. i should say that the common wealth club intention is to bring this history including the
10:30 pm
association with harry bridges and the events of 1934 more to public attention through this building. we have very extensive plans to do that. so we'll certainly look at the landmark in question. it is not our intention at all to suppress that rather to bring it to public light. >> it just makes sense with the measures that you would take the next logical step. >> we have to look into it. >> what was your response to that letter? >> the letter was written without sf having heard the last corrections in the plan such as the setback.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on